Quantcast The Ram
College Media Network

Sapientia Et Justitia

Serious Problems at Fordham, Part 2: Due Process v. the Students

JOE SCHNEIDERMAN

Issue date: 4/9/08 Section: Opinions
  • Print
  • Email
One of the most fundamental of our civil liberties is our right to due process of law. Neither the States nor the Federal Government may deprive us of our life, liberty or property without due process of law. The right to due process has been held to be so fundamental that, until very recently, the courts hearing criminal arraignments in New York City were open 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. Yes, there were judges and lawyers who did arraignments from 1 a.m. to 9 a.m. every morning. (Well, aren't we the city that never sleeps? But I digress.) Admittedly, due process is an ideal and has certainly not always been attained in certain instances, but, at the very least, there is a known and public procedure as we deal with those who have transgressed against society. Tragically, there is not a similar right at Fordham for its students, and the rights that do exist are so meaningless as to be inconsistent with any notion of due process.

First, as in my other column, due process does extend to college campuses, perhaps in a less compelling form at Fordham than at state schools. There are multiple cases on the subject. For our purposes, we'll analyze the 1960 case of Dixon v. Alabama from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In Dixon, the panel acknowledged that attendance at college was "a mutual decision" that may be ended by either side if the "relationship becomes unpleasant and difficult." Nevertheless, attendance could not be conditioned "upon the renunciation of the constitutional right to procedural due process." The court panel justified its decisions on the fact that "education is vital and, indeed, basic to civilized society" and students had inherent interests in continuing that education, of which they could not be deprived arbitrarily. Accordingly, the court posited that students facing expulsion, while not deserving a "full-dress judicial hearing," at least deserved to know the names of the witnesses against them and a summation of their testimony, present their own testimony or witnesses on their behalf, and all before a university administrative official.
Page 1 of 3 next >

Article Tools

Be the first to comment on this story

  • NOTE: Email address will not be published

Type your comment below (html not allowed)

  I understand posting spam or other comments that are unrelated to this article will cause my comment to be flagged for deletion and possibly cause my IP address to be permanently banned from this server.

Advertisement

Advertisement